HARPREET KAUR & ORS versus MOHINDER YADAV & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 15-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
HARPREET KAUR & ORS.
v.
MOHINDER YADAV & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.  9233 of 2022)
DECEMBER 15, 2022
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Fatal accident –
Compensation –   Computation of loss of income and loss of
consortium – Victim-deceased died in a motor vehicular accident
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck – Deceased
was a farmer/agriculturist aged about 35 years at the time of the
incident, who was survived by his wife, two minor children, and his
mother – Claim petition u/s.166 of the Act – Tribunal partly allowed
the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- with 6% interest –
Appeal by claimants on the ground that the Tribunal only considered
the sauni crops, and not the rabi/harri crops which were also
cultivated on the lands – High Court partly allowed the appeal and
enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 17,66,000/ along with 7.5%
interest; High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.
95,000/-,  added 40% future prospects and deducted one-fourth
towards expenses of the deceased – Still aggrieved with the amount
of compensation, claimants filed instant appeal – Held: Deceased
was a lambardar of the village, and a graduate – The documentary
evidence on record showed that he was cultivating 66 acres, and
was entitled to one-third of the value of produce from income of
those agricultural lands – In addition, he owned and was getting
12 acres cultivated – Admitted returns were to the tune of  Rs. 95,000/
- – According to deceased’s wife, the deceased’s income was  Rs.
1,00,000/-; the claim was for an extent of 1 crore – Whilst there was
no evidence for the latter amount, the documentary evidence
supported the appellant’s case in regard to cultivation of extensive
lands – Having regard to these facts, the assessment of income @
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 54
54
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
55
Rs. 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end, and insufficient – It
would in the circumstances of the case, be appropriate that the actual
income should be computed @ Rs.1,50,000/- per annum – Applying
40% towards future prospects, the total annual income  amounts to
2,10,000 – With a one-fourth deduction (dependents), the annual
loss of dependency would be  Rs. 1,57,500 – Applying a multiplier
of 16, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 25,20,000.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The documentary evidence included the forms
filled and submitted to the Agricultural Produce Market
Committee. Besides, the documents included the agreement
between the deceased, his parents, and brother, whereby he was
permitted to cultivate the lands owned by them, and entitled to
1/3 of the value of the produce. It is an uncontroverted fact that
he was also a lambardar of the village, and a graduate. The total
extent of land he cultivated was 66 acres. He owned 12 acres.
The tribunal arrived at a lump sum amount of Rs. 95,000/- per
annum, and deducted 1/3rd from that sum, on the ground that it
constituted expenditure, and made a further deduction of 1/3rd
amount towards the deceased’s living expenses. The High Court
added  Rs.  38,000/- towards the sum of  Rs. 95,000/-, towards
future prospects (@ 40%) and  deducted 1/4th towards expenses
of the deceased, thus resulting in recomputation of income at
Rs. 99,750/- per annum. It applied a multiplier of 16  and added
other elements to arrive at the final figure of  Rs. 17,66,000/-
with  interest @ 7.5% per annum. [Para 8][59-E-H]
2. Even while the High Court increased the level of income,
it did not address the issue in the correct perspective. The
documentary evidence on record showed that the deceased was
cultivating 66 acres, and was entitled to a third of the value of
produce from income of those agricultural lands. In addition, he
owned and was getting over 12 acres cultivated. The admitted
returns were to the tune of  Rs. 95,000/-. According to the first
HARPREET KAUR & ORS. v. MOHINDER YADAV & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
appellant (the deceased’s wife) the deceased’s income was  Rs.
1,00,000/- per month; the claim was for an extent of 1 crore. Whilst
there is no evidence for the latter amount, the documentary
evidence supported the appellant’s case in regard to cultivation
of extensive lands. Having regard to these facts, the assessment
of income @ 95,000/- appears to be on the lower end, and
insufficient. It would in the circumstances of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.